1912702 (Refugee)

This case concerned an application for a protection visa by a husband and wife. The applicant wife sought to establish that she had a well-founded fear of persecution in India due to a land dispute, which had allegedly led to an attack on her home and a fear of being killed. The husband's claim was based on being a member of the same family unit as the wife. The decision was made by Kate Chapple.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant wife met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether there was a real chance of persecution in all areas of India. A secondary issue was whether the husband qualified as a member of the same family unit as a person who met the protection visa criteria, pursuant to section 36(2)(b) or (c) of the Act.

The court considered evidence regarding land disputes in India, including the prevalence of such disputes, the role of the "land mafia," and the potential for violence. It also examined the effectiveness of state protection in India, noting issues of corruption and incompetence. Ultimately, the court found no evidence that the husband satisfied the criteria for a protection visa as a member of the same family unit as a person who held such a visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa to either the wife or the husband.